|
The True State of the Union: We Have No Rights Whatsoever
Tom Mullen
Campaign
For Liberty
Thursday, February 4th, 2010
It has been almost a week since President Obama gave his first
State of the Union address, and it has been analyzed from the
left, right, center, front, and back. Of course, the speech
is really about the performance of the federal government, particularly
its wonderful accomplishments under the leadership of the sitting
president. This is not peculiar to the Obama presidency. As
far back as Jefferson, presidents have used the Constitutionally-mandated
stump speech to do a little self-promotion, although what they
promote has certainly changed quite dramatically.
However, if the speech is supposed to reflect the accomplishments
of the federal government, then we should expect that it will
contain specifics about how that government has fulfilled its
purpose, which is, as we all know, to secure our rights. At
least that's what our founding document tells us. Therefore,
if a president is going to do a little bragging about what a
great job he has done, it would be logical to assume that we
would hear particulars about the way in which he has secured
our rights. Logic, however, has little to do with the machinations
of leviathan.
In fairness, President Obama did begin his speech with a few
remarks about the actual state of our country - a state of economic
devastation and unending war. The fact that both of these afflictions
have been caused wholly by our federal government is something
that seems to have gone right by him, although he is not unique
in that respect, either. Having reminded us about how bad things
are, he dutifully lays as much blame as possible on the president
that preceded him (another time-honored tradition when succeeding
a president of the opposing party). He then moves right into
trumpeting his accomplishments.
The president explains how he hit the ground running after
taking over during the financial crisis, which began during
the last year of the Bush administration. He takes pride in
the fact that he supported the bank bailouts over the wishes
of the American people, because when he ran for president, he
"promised he wouldn't just do what was popular," he
would do "what was necessary." I don't remember that
particular campaign promise, although I do remember him promising
to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States" or something to that effect. I suppose you
can't expect him to keep them all.
President Obama justifies his first initiative as president
as follows:
"And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system,
unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses
would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been
lost."
Perhaps the president is correct on this. Perhaps he is not.
However, there is one consideration that seems wholly missing
from his thought process. Do the people whose money was taken
to "stabilize the financial system" have any rights?
By what authority was their money confiscated, even if it were
for "the good of all?" Majority vote?
The president next goes on to extol the virtues of the first
policy that was wholly his own. He says that his administration
"extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than
18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper
for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed
25 different tax cuts... As a result, millions of Americans
had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all
of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't
raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not
a single dime."
This seems to be a mixed message. The part about extending
unemployment benefits and making health insurance cheaper seems
like more wealth redistribution. However, he also mentions tax
cuts that saved jobs and let people keep more of their own money.
One might have been led to believe that he actually secured
the right to property here, at least for some of his constituents.
Then came the punch line.
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the
tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right ---
the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists
on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs
and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for
it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its
workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer
in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery
Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of
the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising
two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school
that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after
all."
It is ironic that one of the examples that the president cites
is a window manufacturer. Those few lucid economists who are
not among those "on the left and the right" who agree
wholeheartedly with the stimulus bill certainly would have been
unable to avoid recalling Frederic Bastiat's "broken window
fallacy." It is the absurd reasoning that Bastiat exposes
in his famous essay, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen,"
that underlies the entire "stimulus" strategy. Occasionally,
this has been pointed out in public debates over these programs.
However, there is one question that has not even been asked
by President Obama's most vitriolic Republican opponents. Do
the people who were forced to fund the Recovery Act have rights?
President Obama implies that his wonderful largesse was accomplished
without taxing anyone, but this is absurd. It may be true that
he has not had a tax increase passed in the Congress, but the
funding for the Recovery Act can only come from one place. For
the portion that was borrowed by the U.S. government from other
nations, that money will eventually have to be paid back. The
government only has one official source of revenue -- taxation.
The fact that those who will pay the taxes to underwrite the
Recovery Act may not be born yet (although I don't personally
believe that Washington has that much time left) doesn't change
the fact that they will be forced to pay it back.
There is also an "unofficial" source of revenue for
the government, and that is inflation. For the portion of the
Recovery Act debt that the Federal Reserve merely monetizes,
it is no less taxation than is an appropriation from the Treasury.
It is merely a more insidious form of taxation, one that does
not look its victim in the eye, but rather steals from him silently
through depreciation of a currency that he is forced to use
by the government. Whether by official or unofficial means,
there are individuals whose money will be confiscated by the
government so that others may keep their jobs. Again, I ask,
do those individuals have rights?
It should not go without mention exactly who these people are
whose jobs have been saved by the Recovery Act. According to
the president, "there are about two million Americans working
right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand
work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers
and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters,
correctional officers, first responders. And we're on track
to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by
the end of the year."
Is there anyone among these two million that are not government
employees? Perhaps the construction workers, although I'd bet
they are working solely on government contracts. In any case,
they are all on the receiving end of the taxation, necessitating
that others must be taken from in order for them to receive.
The whole concept of the government "saving or creating
jobs" is one whose injustice seems to elude everyone. That
is probably because a century of "progressive" ideas
has completely befuddled us about what a job really is. A job
is a contract between a buyer and a seller. The employee is
the seller, who sells his services to an employer for a mutually
agreed upon price -- his wages. This contract is one that both
parties enter into voluntarily. The employer purchases the services
because he is willing and able to do so. The employee sells
for precisely the same reasons. Each has a right not to enter
into the agreement, or to terminate it anytime he wishes.
However, when the government "saves or creates jobs,"
it completely overrides the voluntary nature of this arrangement.
If an employer is no longer willing or able to continue to purchase
the services of an employee, the government has only one means
at its disposal to change that outcome: brute force. It uses
this force to confiscate the property of other people and thereby
force them to purchase the services of the employee, since the
employer is no longer willing or able to do so himself. The
government claims it has saved a job, but it certainly has not
secured any rights. In fact, it has acted counter to its purpose.
It has destroyed the rights that it exists to protect.
It is the same evil at work in the president's call for "health
care reform." As part of his plans to "improve the
system," the government will not only annihilate the right
of property but liberty as well. While taxing some in order
to pay the doctor bills of others, the federal government will
ensure that no one can even conscientiously object. Every American
will be required to purchase insurance from one of the government's
pet corporations, regardless of whether they want to or not.
This amounts to a mandatory fee paid to the government merely
for the privilege of being alive. Once the right to property
is destroyed, the rights to liberty and even to life are destroyed
with them.
Without repeating the analysis for every program that the president
described, they all rest upon the same logic. There is some
mysterious entity called "society" whose needs outweigh
the rights of every individual that comprises it. In fact, it
is apparent from the president's speech (and those of most of
his predecessors) that the federal government recognizes no
rights of any individual whatsoever. Sadly, there are not many
among the citizenry who think any differently. So long as representatives
have been democratically elected, their power knows no bounds
and recognizes no rights.
America was founded upon exactly the opposite idea. The reason
that the U.S Constitution guarantees every American "a
Republican form of government," rather than a democratic
one, is precisely because its framers believed that individual
rights cannot be voted away. We cannot vote ourselves a right
to other people's property, not even to save millions of jobs
(although it is really not possible to do so anyway). We cannot
vote away another's liberty, not even to lower health care costs
for those who cannot afford it (although this will not work
either). This was the central principle upon which our nation
was founded -- that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable
rights. A pure democracy does not recognize these rights.
Progressives promote the idea that "taxation without representation"
was the chief injustice that led to the American Revolution.
This is convenient to their agenda, because they go on to justify
any tax levied by a democratically-elected body on the grounds
that those being taxed were represented in that body.
Of course, this begs the question, "Why did the founders
specifically instruct Benjamin Franklin not to under any circumstances
accept an offer of representation for the colonies in the British
parliament?" Perhaps we should be so wise. Secession anyone?
"When the people find they can vote themselves
money, that will herald the end of the republic."
- Fall Of The Republic - Buy
the DVD here
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
